- (1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of Special Judge, Hoshiarpur, dated 23rd December, 1988 whereby he held that no ground to frame charge against the accused (Teja Singh respondent) was made out and the said accused was ordered to be discharged in a case registered on the basis of F.I.R. No. 278 dated 7.10.1982 at Police Station City, Hoshiarpur under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1949.
(2.) In brief, facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that Shri Raja Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Hoshiarpur lodged a complaint with Station House Officer, Police Station City, Hoshiarpur on the basis of which aforesaid first information report was registered. According to the said complaint, he had learnt from reliable sources that Teja Singh who was posted as General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Hoshiarpur, in the year 1977-78 was a corrupt official; that he has amassed property and collected money by adopting illegal and corrupt means during his tenure of service from April, 1966 to March, 1979. He had during this period purchased a plot at Hoshiarpur and constructed a house by spending Rs. 77,000/- and also purchased properties in Hoshiarpur in his name or in the name of other members of his family. During this period, his assessed income was Rs. 1,59,260/- whereas he spent Rs. 2,36,525/-. Thus amount spent by him exceeded his known sources of income by Rs. 77,318/-. Hence, Teja Singh by collecting money by illegal and corrupt sources has committed an offence punishable under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After completion of the investigation, final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted in the trial Court. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the Special Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide his impugned order, discharged the counsel holding that no ground to frame charge against the accused in this case made out.
(3.) Mrs. S.K. Bhatia, A.A.G. Punjab, appearing on behalf of the State Submitted that bar created under Rule 2.2 contained in Chapter II of Volume II of the Punjab Civil Service Rules relates to regulate the release, withholding or withdrawing of the pension only and is not in any way attracted to the commission of an offence under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Reliance in this respect was placed on an authority of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Kailash Nath, 1989 1 RCR(Cri) 139, wherein it was observed as under :- "The embargo to prosecution spelt out by the High Court is not to be found in the main rule 2.2 but in the third proviso to the said rule. It is the third proviso which enjoins that no judicial proceedings, if not institute while the official was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or an event which took place more than four years before such institution. The scope of a proviso is well settled." It was further observed that : "The purpose of the third proviso thereto is, as is the scope of a proviso, to carve out an exception to the right conferred on the Government by the substantive clause if the conditions contemplated by the proviso are fulfilled. This purpose can be achieved if the said proviso by adopting the rule of reading down is interpreted to mean that even if a Government servant is prosecuted and punished in judicial proceedings instituted in respect of cause of action which arose or an event which took place more than four years before such institution the Government will not be entitled to exercise the right conferred on it by the substantive provisions contained in clause (b) with regard to pension of such a Government servant. The word "Such" in the beginning of the third proviso also supports this interpretation.";